tv [untitled] September 7, 2012 9:00am-9:30am PDT
hetchy because other cost savings balance out some of the other revenues. the scorecard that you look at every quarter are the key ratios in accordance with how we're doing according to the observance policy. and that is met across all three enterprises, with not only water receiving the check mark for revenues. but again, everyone is coming in healthy, as u.s. to norplant -- as you assumed in your plan. >> commissioners, any questions? >> i had one. i notice under the hetchy materials that there was half a million less power materials purchased from that project. should we read anything into that? or is that a normal fluctuation? >> we budget up to the projected availability of the power.
we budget about $2 million. we did not meet that whole amount based upon generation. >> and is there anything -- is that just a matter of the weather? or is there something about the efficiency of the units or anything of broader interest? gregg's assistant general manager for power. it is largely weather-driven. >> does that mean that we will be changing our estimates in the future? or is that just this year? >> i'm sorry, changing our -- ? >> estimates. >> yes. we always cast back to forecast our future needs. whether that is something we will have to adjust for, but yes, we will take a look and verify our understanding of the differences. it is largely weather-based.
if there is a performance problem, then we are not out money. the contract terms protect us from that. >> i thought it was not an issue that even in heavy fog would generate enough. >> we do generate electricity. just as on an overcast day you can get sunburned and generate electricity, but it is not as efficient. we only pay the power producer for the kilowatt hour per meter.
we pay based on what we are projecting. it produced less, so that means we are paying less, but that means we are whole and not harmed. >> and the other item is our standard water system and program report. >> good afternoon, commissioners. in my have day-to-day i wanted to touch on two projects. the caltrans dam and the bae tunnel. the cow thecal res -- the cal res dam, we have completed 14 of the 16 additional borrowings that are required to further analyze these new geologic features that were discovered at the project site. the contractor has been very
helpful in giving us sick access to those locations where the design engineers wanted us to drill new borings. but the analysis of the data that we are generating, as well as the design modifications that are needed to mitigate the potential slope and stability should be available by mid september. and then it will likely take a full two months to negotiate a change of this magnitude. only in late november or december will we know for sure the exact cost and schedule impact of that change. in the meantime, we are continuing on that contract work and making progress on a number of activities that are not on the critical path. obviously, we are very anxious to start excavation began on that slope of the abutment. and i'm working very closely
with the design team as well as the contractor to make that happen in the next few weeks. as you know, that work on the bae tunnel has progressed very well. however, we did encounter a situation late last week that will impact our project progress. last friday, we were notified by cargill, who is in charge of a salt pond operation in new work, that they had discovered some pretty significant cracking around one of their levees around their salt bond -- salt pond in the bay. and since we had just tunnel underneath that levee, the assumption iwas that the tunnelling was what was causing the cracking. keep in mind and our tunnelling is 680 ft. below surface. we immediately stopped our exploration activities and we're
working with our project engineers and geologists on assessing the situation. we have also completed the repairs on the crack subsidence on the levee already. we have yet to determine whether or tunneling activities are what cause the cracking. in the meantime, we're putting together a mitigation plan that involves the driving of she piles on both sides of two different levees, which would allow us to continue operations. we have also asked our contractor to revise their soil conditioning plant. this is the conditioning they use ahead of the tbm to avoid potential subsidence in the future. in the meantime, we are continuing with the excavation of the shaft at newark, and that
is going very well. our goal is to resume tunneling as soon as possible. however, i anticipate we will be on hold for three to four weeks. the good news is that we are about five months ahead of schedule on this project. we are in a position where we can absorb that in our project schedule. i will be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> commissioners, any questions? >> thank you very much. >> that is the report. >> ok, thank you. any public comment? >> david pelle pal, and i'm just touching back on the pg&e gas pipeline on the revocable permit issue. this is the first and hearing
about it. i appreciate the watershed mitigation protection. it seems that there would be all kinds of impacts and things. i do not know who has to reply with what ceqa requirements. that is an interesting point. i would hope that within the staff that the groups are involved and what ever we need to do and what ever reports need to be generated or monitored that it can be done to the commission in the future. i'm also wondering if pg&e will vacate their existing building if their new pipelines are being taken out of the old? and i'm assuming that they will cover all of the puc costs related to this relocation. >> mr. harrington? >> all of the different parts of the puc are involved with city
planning, because city planning has to be happy with the final review on that. in many cases, i believe they want to have the old pipeline left in place. what you do when a pipeline is still underground there, we're working on reimbursement of costs. >> and if they are leaving the zero pipeline -- leaving the old pipeline, to the extent that their costs later on, they're working that out, right? >> yes. >> ok, thank you. >> the report of the bosky general manager, mr. johnson. >> i will keep my remarks brief. you have a long way to go today. i think i am interested in watching you deal with the triple bottom line, as you do your sources to work. a couple of comments, ab 6127,
that would allow us to issue substantial bonds that is on the governor's desk, hopefully he will sign it soon, or at least not veto it and allow it to become law. we will continue to work with staff to make sure all the pieces are in place that we can issue the bonds and you folks can use the money. we will be going to our board in september with some major actions. the final action will be in november. but we will have major actions to get people on board to get their rights in putting our package together. i have already extend my personal congratulations to mr. kelly. with that forward to working with him and continue working with the commissioner -- commissioner and the mayor to satisfy all our customers and state -- stakeholders. i will save all of my guest remarks to a later date. [laughter] >> thank you. which brings us to the consent
calendar. madam clerk? >> >> item 9, consent calendar, approve meant -- approval of the award agreement see as a-1678- seat, a conference of technical services for renewal and advanced energy generation systems for a cumulative total of $6,750,000 and with a duration of five years per agreement. the, approve the selection and award agreement cs-229a-d as needed. for the water enterprise tormc of water and environment, aecom
water resources engineering joint venture. a total of $16 million and with the duration of five years per agreement. see, -- c, a community choice aggregation to authorize the general manager to execute this amendment with an extension of treatments for total duration of four years and three months. d, approved amendment no. 3 to provide continued engineering support for the bay division part by no. 5 cordilleras micro tunnel project and authorize the
general manager to execute this amendment. increasing the agreement direction by one year for a total duration of seven years. e, approve the plans and specifications and award a contract w.w.-542, oceanside water pollution control plant dewatering facility upgrades in the amount of $4,547,000 with the contract duration of 510 consecutive calendar days. itf, authorize the general manager to execute a jaunt -- a joint funding agreement with the u.s. geological survey for an amount not to exceed $1,750,000 for the duration of five years. g, discussion and possible action authorizing reimbursement of certain expenditures for
capital related costs of the water enterprise from proceeds of a future bonded indebtedness. >> thank you. i have a request to remove to9e. hearing no objections, i move items nine with the exception of 9e. all in favor? all opposed? motion carries. >> a wanted to speak in terms of solid water content. that indicates there will not be a range of savings on our costs. i wonder if in the future we can report that, or if there is an -- a way to estimate that.
i'm very excited about not shopping around a 17% of the dewater cake. hopefully we will do the same as in as possible at oceanside in the next year-and-a-half. this is fantastic stuff. and also, taking with the temperature faced in a big direction, a project was approved a month ago at oceanside that will improve the solid handling process. i'm very excited about bio solids. thank you. >> i art -- aren't we all? [laughter] i appreciate your comments. one thing i had commented to him earlier today was that this is a good news contract award. it is money being spent on the southeast. it has large purchase a patient. it is a good project and it is
worthy of note. >> and i should note that it is significantly less than the engineers estimates. we are taking advantage of the good contractor. >> thank you, mr. kelly. >> the other thing that i would like to point out that is significant is that it will be contained. the other thing i wanted to point out is that the contractor that won this award, cal state, was one of the contractors that loss with a slim margin to moderate mechanical. and they came back and it again and won this project. we have faith they will be in the program. >> ok, thank you. >> could i have a motion? >> moved. the crack second. >> all in favor? motion carries. item 10 will probably take about an hour and a half. why don't we take about a five
minute break. >> can we have everybody sit down, please? >> thank you. madam secretary, would you call item 10? >> item 10, is to resist an improvement program validation workshop #3. endorsement of goals and levels of service, and validation of the sewers system improvement program projects, scope, and a plantation process. >> thank you.
>> good afternoon. we are finally here at workshop 3, the end of our validation series. i want to commend the commission because you helped to guide and for this process in the last several years. and it has been years. we had three workshops in 2010- 11 and we had three workshops this summer, but all has led to the validation of that improvement program. we have had numerous briefings and input from the public. i have to say on behalf of staff, this is for moderate
level staff all the way to the very top and general manager harrington, there have been very long days and late nights that have gone into putting this together and to delivering this information in a quick, robust way. we feel that the information we have put forward to you has been well thought out. it has been responsive to your questions and i think he will be happy with the workshop today. maybe we can start with a reminder. we did have the two validation workshop in july. the first was july 10th and focused on treatment options. then we followed up on july, -- and then we followed up on july 24th. today we are going over the questions that we received an compiling that into our as sip.
at the end of the workshop, said the that is different is that we will be asking the commission to consider a resolution -- a resolution to endorse the goals and validate the ip and move forward with the first phase of work. we started out with our five questions. this has been common throughout each of our workshops. do we include the treatment recommendations, the collection system recommendations, the cost and schedule, the duration, the associated rate impacts, and because of level of service. we have to wrap up the goals and levels of service and have that completed. we want to hear from you if you have supported the recommendations that support our validation process. and if you agree with our proposed phasing for the
program, we are looking for a way to take this $6.9 billion program and phase it over time so we can deliver the most important things first. first, todd will review the rates, and then joanne ellis will join us to talk about the public education. this is the agenda for today's workshop. i know some of you are probably thinking about the question that you asked in workshop one or two and wondering when i will get to it. we will start out with a brief reminder of the questions and i will tell you the reader's digest version. then the presentation itself will match them in the order that we go through them. the program manager will follow my presentation and he will be going through the project options and so that we have that for the record. and we can refresh and look at the great green question. and as we did in a frock -- the prior workshops, we will have a
positive * track discussions -- specific times to have discussions. it has worked pretty effectively in the past. with that, we will begin the meat of the workshop. these are the questions. the first one is whether the ssip should change the goal to integrate green and gray infrastructure and to minimize flooding. we agree that a joy. we will get more on this item. -- we agree that it should. we will get more on this item. the second question is whether the bias salads digester facilities project can be accelerated. but yes, we will present to you today a way to consolidate that schedule. we also have some work in our program some work that could be
done on the existing digesters. question 3, do we need to buy a $7 billion program today? we are requesting your validation of our $6.9 billion program, but we will present -- present a phased approach that we think is workable. that will be during the implementation portion of the agenda. the question came up from commissioner moran, are we double counting the green infrastructure budget. no, we are not. and we will recap the entire section of the workshop where we're talking about gray and gray/green projects and how those compared in costa and can -- and performance. and we will compare rate made -- ratepayer monthly bill impacts. todd will include that and we
have actually included what the impact would be in the year 2032. just to revisit, hopefully for the last time for a while, are the ssip recommended goals. in black font are the goals that we have consensus on. we were asked at the last meeting to modify the second goal so that we could articulate our commitment to fighting as well as integration of green and gray. we have done that and we believe that the goal written grey integrates green and gray of the structure to manage storm water and minimize flooding. we believe it achieved that. you probably wonder why in your
packet we included both the non -- both the red line and the non-red line. we have gotten the worksheet that is now complete. in your commission package, we included all the changes that were read mind that made it through the process of workshop wind and workshop two. the recommend -- workshop i and workshop ii. the recommendations are what are delivered. the strategies are what we are deploying. the goals of servers are what we are trying to me. you have that agger permanent record. and that will be as we move forward and try to get the agenda items on resolution for -- four, the very items that will be included in that. with that, i would like to ask dan donohue from the program management team to come up. he will be reviewing the recommendations that we
established. he will talk about the treatment projects and the collection systems projects. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the summary that we will walk through this afternoon focuses on the recommendations that we presented to you at the two previous workshops, one on the treatment plant, and one on the collection systems. as you recall, in workshop one, we first discuss the dios del digester -- biocell digester facilities and the treatment plant at oceanside and north point. in a workshop ii, we discussed improvement of the system systemwide. and we looked at bayside issues, with side issues, and green infrastructure. we will review the recommend --
-- recommended options from each of the categories. as karen mentioned, you asked also that the cost of the options be related to the average monthly bills. i will try to provide this information as i walk through. for the biosolids, we recommended option 3, which include new facilities. the facilities would be relocated away from the impacted neighbors along phelps street. the cost of the program is just over $2 billion. also as karen mentioned, you asked us to look at whether the schedule for implementation of the digesters could be accelerated. on this slide at the top, what we reflect is what is presented to you for implementation in workshop i.
at the bottom is what we are considering -- presenting for your consideration today. in looking at how to shorten schedule, we looked at activities related to planning and design. we looked at front end as well as back and activities in sequence a for the plant. we looked at shortening planning and design by six months, being very careful not to adversely impact the environmental and the ceqa review processes that we do not want to have a negative impact on. we also look at the construction sequencing and realize we could consolidate some of the construction packages and bring facilities on mind sooner. that resulted in a six-month reduction in construction as well, for a total of 18 months off of the overall project schedule. we are presently working with staff on efforts to prepare the environment and ceqa
information as secretly as possible. -- as efficiently as possible. we're looking to get these priorities on line as quickly as possible and we will continue to expedite the schedule and those things needed for decision making. this would also include considering alternative delivery methods to further shortened schedules. an interesting schedule -- and interesting benefit of shortening the schedule is that we do have savings involved in this, due to the shorting of the schedule and the escalation that it has on the overall program. what we find is that the overall program is now just under $2 billion for the biosolid digester facilities. and the impact to the average monthly bill in the year 23-2032 would be $20 a month. that would gradually increase over